Physical Coin transactions proposal

[shroom2021]

After reading the other coin proposal discussion I am thinking that the coin problems should be broken into smaller issues. This is an attempt to address the lack of physical coin or monetary representation at events.

1. All transactions valued under 50 province marks must be conducted in game, in character. In order to complete any transaction, the physical currency must be transferred at an event and then deposited with the Darkon banker. IE. I want to purchase a ship for my country. The money for the ship must be physically carried from my country to the banker during an event. This must be done in character so that the caravan is open to attack until the transaction is complete.

Rational: This should bring more coin back to the game and open oppourtunities for rogues and other countries to do harm to a rival country by assaulting their caravans. Any assault of course may be witnessed, and that information sold/passed on to the country that just lost the caravan. Drama

2. All transaction valued over 50 province marks must be conducted in game, in character, using a bearer bond (A note issue by the Bank of Darkon of the appropriate value that belongs to whomever controls it.). In order to complete any transaction, the physical note must be transferred at an event and then deposited with the Darkon banker. IE. I want to pay bloody axe 100 province marks to commit to a large scale war against Chosen Blood. I must first obtain the bearer bond for 100 province marks from the banker. I this must physically walk the bond over to Bloody Axe who will then walk it to the banker for deposit. During this time all persons involved in the transfer are in character and open to assault.

Rational: I don't expect anyone to have to cart around an actual wheel barrell full of coin to get anything done, thus the use of bearer bonds. The bonds can be cashed in by anyone to stay true to the spirit of the proposal so that anyone may steal/loot the marker and cash it in themselves. IE. Choosen Blood learning of the transaction intercepts the caravan going to Bloody Axe and steals the bond, thus preventing Bloody Axe from joining the war. IE2. Offa the Rogue disguises himself as a member of Elidor and when no one is looking lifts the bond and saunters off. He then deposits the bond and is a wealthy Rogue. IE3. Waaagh see' sum pasty humies walkin dun ta road an killz dems all. Dez findz a bit of papr fer da toilet on a humie an da bankr sez dat itz worth a lotta salt. Waaagh then cashes the bond with the banker and drinks all night at the tavern.

Thoughts?

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

No. No way.

1. Puts small countries at a great disadvantage.

2. Makes zero sense. Your treasury is in your castle. Why would you need to transfer the money to build a ship or structure to anywhere other than within your own borders where you have armies to defend the land?

[Noctis]

Against as well, primarily for the second reason Itztafein notes. As I understand it, the Coin Marshal is about as in character as all the other marshals, which is to say, they aren't while they are in the middle of such marshal task. A Coin marshal is an OOC narrator keeping track of what money is in who's possession, and if they are spending it on resources.

Like wise, the idea of attacking any such resources mid shipment, is better off a Land action proposal.
I.E. Country A declares they want to stop the flow of lumber being used to build a ship for Country B, with something to represent heavy pieces of lumber/wagon filled with it (with a limit to how many pieces of lumber a player can carry at once), to either steal those resources, or delay the completion of the construction of that ship (or other structure). That way, it would be more in character, and realistic, and provide some options during war actions.

[fingers630]

1. Country coffers can only be used for land actions
2. ...
3. Profit

Put all "personal" coins into play. You bring them with you to the event, you check in with them, and they better be kept in play all day long. If you are captured, and have 0 coin on you, you better have a good reason under truth speak as to where your coins are.

Bank of Darkon? Hell yeah, bring it out to battle, cause that * is in play and should be able to be robbed.

[shroom2021]

1. Country coffers can only be used for land actions
2. ...
3. substituted.

So if I read the comments correctly, the biggest dislike here is the use of both the banker of darkon and the need to physically transfer money for in country uses (Building ships, castles, etc. etc.)
That in mind:

1. All transactions involving the transfer of money between countries must be conducted in game, in character, with physical currency. If the amount is above 50 province marks, a bearer bond may be used instead.

This eliminates the use of the Darkon banker, transaction is complete when the gold/bond is delivered to the country receiving the money. Still leaves an opening for any country, small or large, to intercept the transfer. This could be used for a smaller country to say, fight a guerilla war against a larger foe. Maybe used to prevent a third party from unbalencing a stalemate between to evenly matched countries.

1. Puts small countries at a great disadvantage.

Not sure why a smaller country should not be at a disadvantage. Seems logical to assume that the country of Ivan Land founded yesterday is going to be at a disadvatage to Rome. If we try to even the playing field for new countries, what would be the point of being an old and well established country?

[fingers630]

I have no problem with the darkon of banker...if the coin is brought to every battle, and in play.

[shroom2021]

Noctis had a good point about the coin marshal not really being an in character entity. Also, I was thinking about it an having the delivery point for all transactions be the coin marshall would essentially mean that he/she will never get to play Darkon at any event, which would suck.

The point of this is to both increase the ability of countries to take shots at each other without declaring actual war, which can then lead to a pre-WW1 level of tension between countries, and to motivate people to bring currency back to the game. It almost feels like most country to country transactions are conducted wirelessly through offshores accounts in this game, and given our setting I don't think it should be that way.

[fingers630]

Correct, the coin marshall is not in play. The banker and bank of Darkon however, is.

[Snudge]

I have problems reading over this thread.
1.) 50 province marks is 25000 silver, that's 2500 gold. The game does not have the coin to even attempt this.
2.) The banker of darkon is an out of game position, that exists solely to give players the option to leave their coin with the game, but not in the custody of the coin marshal. Who has very different duties. Please see page 10 (Coin Marshal) & 59 (Banker) of the rulebook as to the duties of each position
You cannot loot the darkon bank.
3.) Your "bearer bonds" idea is the exact same thing as a coin writ. Which are in fact in character items, can be looted and are already in game.
4.) There is no reason a country needs to write a writ for coin to commission construction inside its borders.
5.) There is already an in character banking system in the game, two banks exist already. First National Bank of Nurgle and the First Royal Darkonian Trust. If you want more info on them ask around in character, they aren't hidden.

[fingers630]

I don't see anything under Coin Marshall Pg 10 about a Banker of Darkon. It is mentioned on pg 59. So is this an elected position? Does it change from year to year as I don't think Ive ever heard of a banker of darkon other than Snudge. Except Kobalos' "other" bank of darkon.

Is the service free then? I can drop my money in and take it out whenever I want?

[Amazing_Iltztafein]

1. Country coffers can only be used for land actions
2. ...
3. substituted.

So if I read the comments correctly, the biggest dislike here is the use of both the banker of darkon and the need to physically transfer money for in country uses (Building ships, castles, etc. etc.)
That in mind:

1. All transactions involving the transfer of money between countries must be conducted in game, in character, with physical currency. If the amount is above 50 province marks, a bearer bond may be used instead.

This eliminates the use of the Darkon banker, transaction is complete when the gold/bond is delivered to the country receiving the money. Still leaves an opening for any country, small or large, to intercept the transfer. This could be used for a smaller country to say, fight a guerilla war against a larger foe. Maybe used to prevent a third party from unbalencing a stalemate between to evenly matched countries.

1. Puts small countries at a great disadvantage.

Not sure why a smaller country should not be at a disadvantage. Seems logical to assume that the country of Ivan Land founded yesterday is going to be at a disadvatage to Rome. If we try to even the playing field for new countries, what would be the point of being an old and well established country?

They're already at a disadvantage. By adding yet another thing to disadvantage them, it just becomes unfun. You know what that leads to? People joining big countries and the lack of new countries ever forming.

Old countries already have money, land, and players. A new country has no chance if they can't even BUILD STUFF ON THE LAND THEY HAVE because XX country decides to attack them while they are on their way to the banker.

Again, none of this makes any sense because they are in their OWN LAND while paying for this. They aren't paying an actual person who is the banker of Darkon, they are paying their workers in their own land to build the stuff. Why would that money ever leave their lands?

[shroom2021]

Old countries already have money, land, and players. A new country has no chance if they can't even BUILD STUFF ON THE LAND THEY HAVE because XX country decides to attack them while they are on their way to the banker.

So if I read the comments correctly, the biggest dislike here is the use of both the banker of darkon and the need to physically transfer money for in country uses (Building ships, castles, etc. etc.)
That in mind:

1. All transactions involving the transfer of money between countries must be conducted in game, in character, with physical currency. If the amount is above 50 province marks, a bearer bond may be used instead.

You even quoted my update here, the change makes it so the physical transfer of money ONLY OCCURS BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES and no longer applies to improvements within a countries borders. Maybe I wasn't clear in that last post though.

From the original idea I have removed the use of the banker in any way, transfers are complete when coin is delivered to the country being payed.
Rule would now only apply to transactions between two different countries and not for internal improvements.
No more wireless transfers between countries, you want to pay for a war/ally, you run the risk of loosing money or being found out.

[Snudge]

So what you are saying is that you want to see some sort of caravan leave the capital of one country and goto the capital of the other to deliver the money?

[fingers630]

So what you are saying is that you want to see some sort of caravan leave the capital of one country and goto the capital of the other to deliver the money?

Hell yeah! LOL

[Snudge]

The mechanics for this exist, we just don't use them due to no requirement to do so.
Army/adventure party markers are used to identify armies/adventure parties that have not reached their target destination.
There's no reason we can't use them to ID a caravan, assuming that someone wants to propose that sort of thing. It'd make for more caravan and ship battles in character I'm sure. Hell you might even see an increase in piracy if there are rumors of treasure ships sailing around

[Inox]

Yeah, I think that's a great idea. If Country A is transferring a lot of wealth to Country B, there should be some physical caravan or ship(s) that could get sacked.

Like Snudge said, we already have the marker method of tracking this, so it's not really an issue to add in a few details to make this happen (basically, just linking it to the transfer).

I also like the fact that since Rangers & Druids move faster on the Land Map, there'd be considerations of whether to send Mage/Cleric/heavy Fighter support, or just move it more quickly via the nature-oriented classes. Strategy!

[Sir Aethilgar]

So what you are saying is that you want to see some sort of caravan leave the capital of one country and goto the capital of the other to deliver the money?

Heh, I would require that all mason guilds receive coin at my capital. Done.

Why should a ruler have to cart coin around for their hirelings?

[shroom2021]

Countries may transfer funds to other Countries. To do so, a country’s Liaison must present the Land Marshal with a signed, written 
certificate indicating the transfer to be executed, including the denomination and the country that the funds are to be transferred 
to. A country may transfer up to 25% of its Coffers per event. 
country Liaisons may also withdraw funds from their country’s Coffers in the form of physical coin. Issuance of physical coin is to be 
done at the Land Marshal and/or Coin Marshal’s discretion and a single country may never be issued more than 10% of the total 
physical coinage in the Club’s possession.  

After reviewing everything. My proposal is to add the following to the above section:

Countries may transfer funds to other Countries. To do so, a country's Liaison must preset the Land Marshal with a signed, written certificate indicating the transfer to be executed, including the denomination and country that the funds are to be transferred. A country may transfer up to 25% of its coffers per event. After a transfer has been ordered, a caravan party will spawn at the requesting countries Captial/Castle/City of their choosing and will make its way to the nearest City/Castle/Capital of the receiving country. The caravan party will follow all movement rules under "Land and Sea Movement". The transfer is complete and the funds are awarded to the owner of the City/Castle/Capital that the caravan party reaches first. Country Liaisons may also withdraw funds from their country’s Coffers in the form of physical coin. Issuance of physical coin is to be done at the Land Marshal and/or Coin Marshal’s discretion and a single country may never be issued more than 10% of the total physical coinage in the Club’s possession. 

Rational:

1. No more wireless transfers in a time before computers. Large denominations of money had to be protected when being moved. This should be no different for our game.
2. Add more opportunities to strike at a country without actually declaring war.

Some things I thought about adding, but are debatable as to making them work:

(inserted after ..."Land and Sea Movement"... of the above) If a caravan party is attacked/intercepted by a rival country. The caravan must carry a chest/pouch representing up to 50 province marks worth of physical currency in any denomination(s).

(inserted after ..."Land and Sea Movement"... of the above) If a caravan is attacked and the defenders lose, the caravan party becomes the property of the country who attacked it. The new owning country may then declare a new destination for the caravan party.

[Sir Aethilgar]

Interesting idea; to force caravan land actions, but I disagree with the concept entirely based on historical precedence, Darkon fantasy mechanics, and game burden.

Historically, the concept of banking; deposits, withdrawals, bank notes, money conversion, loans, interest, insurance, futures markets, etc, date back literally thousands of years (some speculate the concept dates back to at least 8000 BC). Some of the earliest concrete support for banking policies can be found in The Code of Hammurabi (dating back to about 1772 BC) and The Torah (suspected to be around 600 BC). Even has early as the Crusades; the Templars were taking deposits at one point and issuing notes for withdrawal at another point to provide safe money transport ('wireless transfers').

It was the need to move large sums of coins that caused such services to appear and be supported by the mercantile mechanisms that were in place at the time. Darkon has no mercantile mechanisms (and I do not advocate creating them). What Darkon has is the benefits of said mechanisms without the burden of actual commerce. We should not remove the benefit needlessly without the creation of the mechanisms that would have supported same. The creation of such mechanisms would create a significant burden on the administration of Darkon.

Darkon's fantasy mechanics easily remove the risk of coin transport and, thus, the need to engage in it. A single use of gaseous form would render the person carrying a sack full of gold unassailable. One could also turn to sanctuary and/or giant form as other possible escape means. So to could one employ a thief with their protected pouch and, again, the risk of coin transportation would be completely mitigated.

The burden to the game would be in mapping out what route large sums coin might be taking, how opposing troops discovered said coin might be taking, how those troops crossed borders and hexes to intercept said coin, etc, etc. Our land and coin marshals do enough for administration of Darkon already without asking them to track the physical movement of assets.

I vote 'no'.

[Inox]

Historically, the concept of banking; deposits, withdrawals, bank notes, money conversion, loans, interest, insurance, futures markets, etc, date back literally thousands of years

As does the transfer of monies by caravan. Note that no one is suggesting that countries wouldn't use such banking methods within their own borders. However, let's be honest: The nations of the past primarily made payment to each other in precious metals--sometimes coin and sometimes not.

There is no real reason Darkon nations shouldn't have to actually transport coin when making dealings between each other.

Especially because the history of this game has shown us that letting it all happen OOC on Excel spreadsheets has exactly zero fun potential, and has generally been used in heavy-handed ways to have an unbalancing effect.

Darkon's fantasy mechanics easily remove the risk of coin transport and, thus, the need to engage in it. A single use of gaseous form would render the person carrying a sack full of gold unassailable. One could also turn to sanctuary and/or giant form as other possible escape means. So to could one employ a thief with their protected pouch and, again, the risk of coin transportation would be completely mitigated.

Either Gaseous or Sanctuary can be Dispelled just as easily, or cut down by a Warrior Mage with a True Strike weapon. Plus, Gaseous is vulnerable to Ice, Fire, and Lightning. Growth can likewise be dispelled, and being giant-sized protects one from no other magics or weapons.

Also, a Thief Pouch is tiny; a mere 2"x4", and is not allowed to be made of stretchy fabric. Good luck putting any large number of coins in such a thing. There are very few coins in the game worth more than a gold, and there's no reason to add any more currently.

There really is no risk-free way to actually, physically transport large sums of coin in Darkon, and that is as it should be. We are here to actually fight each other, are we not?

The burden to the game would be in mapping out what route large sums coin might be taking, how opposing troops discovered said coin might be taking, how those troops crossed borders and hexes to intercept said coin, etc, etc.

There's no more overhead here than any other troop movement on the map, and any country taking an action to do this is going to be giving up some other action.

[Snudge]

Tracking the movements of the caravan's wouldn't actually be that bad. CC3 has a symbol set that we chose icons from, we haven't come close to using them all. Raiding the caravans would be alot harder than it seems, you'd need a state of war to exist to even try. Or if you just attack someone without declaring war, be sure that you'll be at war fast. There's not problem with that, but many countries seem to prefer peace.

[Sir Aethilgar]

...However, let's be honest: The nations of the past primarily made payment to each other in precious metals--sometimes coin and sometimes not....

...Especially because the history of this game has shown us that letting it all happen OOC on Excel spreadsheets has exactly zero fun potential...

And we should be equally honest that, even in ancient times, notes and writs were given in one location in order to withdraw funds in another eliminating the need to transport precious metals. If the wealthy of old found ways to mitigate risks in the transfer of wealth; why not us?

I would not wish any country to give up their land actions in an effort to transport funds.

And we must remember that 'fun potential' is subjective. What is fun for one person or group may not be for another. I, personally, will not have fun in adding more land action conflicts to the game because they tend to delay the start of Darkon's event of the day. Watching others fight over a transported chest of gold doesn't sound like fun. Losing a battle over one's country's gold doesn't sound like fun. What remains is stealing other country's gold which; frankly, I'm not overly interested in. I'll gladly contest against other countries in adventures and the like... will fight you during country themed battles... but will find ways around this rule should it be passed.

Keep in mind; forced conflict will rarely prove fun save on the winning side. Volunteered conflict among those that wish it will often prove to be fun. I'll echo Snudge's words here: "many countries seem to prefer peace." Don't make the game less fun for them in an attempt to make it more fun for somebody else.

[Inox]

And we should be equally honest that, even in ancient times, notes and writs were given in one location in order to withdraw funds in another eliminating the need to transport precious metals. If the wealthy of old found ways to mitigate risks in the transfer of wealth; why not us?

The existence of this in the form you describe was not commonplace. It existed in a few places, like India and China, but it was not the norm.

Also, as I already pointed out, banking existed within communities and empires. NOT between them. Any bank notes Marco Polo brought back from China would not have been accepted in Italy, even if there was a bank in existence at that time (which there wasn't).

I would not wish any country to give up their land actions in an effort to transport funds.

Why not? We give them up to search for swords & fight wars.

Keep in mind, this is solely for monies going from one country to another, and not for anything a country does internally with its own coffers.

And we must remember that 'fun potential' is subjective. What is fun for one person or group may not be for another.

Understood, but if anything, the game needs more reasons to fight, not fewer reasons.

Even if this were in effect, there's an easy way to avoid it: Don't try to take money from your coffers and give it to other countries.

I'll gladly contest against other countries in adventures and the like... will fight you during country themed battles... but will find ways around this rule should it be passed.

As long as you aren't working against the intent of the rule with loopholes (i.e. "grey areas").

Keep in mind; forced conflict will rarely prove fun save on the winning side. Volunteered conflict among those that wish it will often prove to be fun. I'll echo Snudge's words here: "many countries seem to prefer peace." Don't make the game less fun for them in an attempt to make it more fun for somebody else.

Should we not line up and call "lay on", then?

Personally, I think that we need to vastly revamp the land system, as the fighting over permanent hexes seems to cause most of the game's lingering butthurt. It would be better if all results were seasonal at best, much like with individuals in people's tournaments.

[Sir Aethilgar]

...The existence of this in the form you describe was not commonplace. It existed in a few places, like India and China, but it was not the norm...

...Understood, but if anything, the game needs more reasons to fight, not fewer reasons...

...Personally, I think that we need to vastly revamp the land system, as the fighting over permanent hexes seems to cause most of the game's lingering butthurt. It would be better if all results were seasonal at best, much like with individuals in people's tournaments.

Until the Middle Ages and the rise of merchant banks and the Knights Templar both of which provided the local deposit of funds to be withdrawn at far-flung locations "allowing movement of money without the usual risk of robbery while traveling". From this point in time forward, banking of this type was fairly common. The oldest bank in the world continually in business dates back to 1472.

More reasons to fight? I fight every time I show up at Darkon. You are looking for something different, however, and it's a topic that you and I have discussed privately in the recent past. I'm still not sure what the 'right' answer is, however, and I think that Darkon as a whole needs more input on the topic. 'What is fun?' Is it two-team style battles? Is it country style battles? Is it land actions against NPCs? Is it wars between countries? With the myriad of fighting games available locally; what keeps people coming back to Darkon?

Outside Bellum; the two most attended events in recent history have been Crown Wars. Yes, they were two team battles... yes, there was country conflict and politics... but most people and countries on the field had no tangible gain or risk on the table. Perhaps it was the RP that went into the event that encouraged people to come out. Don't know; we'll have to ask them... But my question today is; would a forced, country-based caravan battle be fun for most people and encourage them to come out and play? I have my doubts.

And I think I agree with you in general, Inox. With a very few exceptions (Chosen Blood); fighting over permanent hexes does seem to cause the most angst in game and has been known to prevent people from returning to Darkon. Perhaps it is time to take another look at the land rules.

[Inox]

Again, Templars provided letters that would allow money to be retrieved from other Templars in far-flung locations. Somehow I doubt Templars easily made payments to Muslim-controlled regions with paper. Templars could not pay the Chinese emperor remotely with a letter.

What you have in Darkon is a bunch of autonomous and widely varying empires spread out geographically, and there's extremely limited historical basis for the painless transfer of currency between governments until the last few hundred years.

However, a Templar-type situation would be easy to do in Darkon. A country could maintain one-hex "outposts" to enable easy trading, so long as the outpost didn't get sacked.